Meeting of Leaseholder Action Group Committee 24.7.17 at Hampshire Lodge 7pm
1. Introductions and apologies.
Committee: DJ Croydon (Chair), Tony Worsfold, Keith Marston, Suz Evasdaughter, Simon Rogers, Rosemary Johnson, Dave Spafford, Muriel Briault
Council officers: Larissa Reed (Executive Director Neighbourhoods, Communities and Housing), Martin Reid, Dave Arthur, Keely McDonald, Glyn Huelin
Observers: Steve (Seaside Homes), Lucy, Viv, Jane
Apologies: Violeta Belogaska
2. Minutes (Suz Evasdaughter).
Previous meeting’s minutes. (see Note 1 and action under item 4)
Agreed an accurate record.
3. Area Panel Reps and SIG reps. (See Note2)
The following appointments were confirmed.
Area panels:
West: Muriel Briault
Central: Tony W, Dave Spafford Deputy;
East: Rosemary Johnson
SIG reps:
Business and Value for Money: Dave Croydon (confirmed)
Home: Suz Evasdaughter (confirmed)
Suz Evasdaughter was elected to North.
Involvement and Empowerment: Jane Thorp (volunteered)
Tenancy, Neighbourhood & Community: Dave Spafford (elected at April committee meeting but so far rejected by council)
Larissa suggested that we make a note of people offering to stand. So long as the place is not already taken it is not a problem.
Action Chair: inform Larissa Reed to decide status of unconfirmed appointments.
Action council: will get back to LAG Committee and confirm all accepted representatives.
4. Conversation with Larissa Reed and the document ‘Making Things Better’. (See note 3)
All agreed communication was vital.
Larissa said there was a proposal that the tenants/leaseholders would be so involved with the definition of the works that by the time the section 20 was received there should be no surprises. Involving the tenants in choosing the surveyor would also be part of this new process.
Action council: produce an "aims of the exercise”.
Action Chair: get feedback from Sylvan Hall process, how it worked and what has been learned from it.
There should be no threatening behaviour towards council staff.
Tenants need to complain if they are unhappy with the council. No point complaining to each other.
Action council: All minutes will be published in future.
Action: RFJ to send minutes of previous two committee meetings for publication. Action council: Links to and phone number 01273 605225 will be included in all communications involving leaseholders.
5. Action items.
Not covered in full.
Action Chair: will distribute list.
6. Future meetings. (see note 4)
NB this has changed since the meeting:
18.30 11 September 2017 Leaseholders only.
Action: RFJ to produce briefing paper on how STAR survey is done and issues for us.
Action: decide what we want to do at future meetings.
18.30 6 November 2017 with council and Mears representative
Action: committee to advise council what questions we want to ask Mears.
18.30 11 December 2017 with council
18.30 8 January 2018
18.30 12 February 2018 with council
Action: Dave C to contact caretaker about room bookings/times of meetings
Action: RFJ to contact Larissa about claiming for loss of earnings when meeting attendance means missing work.
7. AOB.
More discussion. (See note 5)
Meeting closed at 21.00.
NOTES
1. Minutes and when/where these will be published was discussed.
2. Discussion and elections/confirmations by KM.
There was a discussion of Area Panel Reps and SIG reps. Larissa asked if there is a place for a leaseholder rep on every SIG group. Keely answered that there was not an official place but we make sure there is at least one leaseholder on each group.
The lack of clarity re. SIG appointments at the AGM resulting in concerns of lack of representation on SIGs.
Larissa: Make a note of people offering to stand. So long as the place is not already taken it is not a problem.
Chair: Why is it not possible to have deputies for these posts?
Larissa: We do not want to have a different group each time - we need continuity.
Chair: I agree the rep should attend but this may not always be possible for everyone.
3. Conversation with Larissa.
Chair: Larissa has been at BHCC just under 7 months. We have noticed changes regarding a willingness to improve things. We all want to be positive in future relations.
Jane presented a case study(see below) taking us through the history of work needing doing from the issuing of a Section 20 notice in May 2015 through to the work being cancelled due to funds being needed elsewhere. The big issue with this was lack of appropriate communication. No one being told anything for two years and confused information from a FOI response.
Larissa: What should have happened in your view?
Jane: It’s really all about communication.
Larissa: Would it be easier if we tell you just what you as an individual block are getting? Also if we have to move money for more urgent work elsewhere e.g. if budget as in this case had to be moved to Albion Hill?
We propose to have a project plan for what we tell tenants and leaseholders. We would do this in a pre-consultation period ie before the Section 20 notice (for which there is a 30 day period before work begins). By the time of Section 20 leaseholders/tenants should know all about it via this consultation and if things change we inform you of this also. We want leaseholders’/tenants’ input on the selection of a surveyor to set the spec for the work; to be involved as early as possible.
Larissa also expressed a concern regarding the departmental staff. I do not want my team threatened - we need honest discussion not threats.
Martin: agreed to involve tenants/leaseholders in preparing lists of major works to be considered, and in specifying the scope and detail of these works.
Keith: made a point about section 20 notice e.g. information on the roof from a surveyor.
Glyn: Involvement of Leaseholder/tenants in choosing the surveyor as part of the engagement process
Keith: We need a level playing field - background information needed
Glyn: jointly select consultants for work each time we begin a project
Larissa: This will be from a pool of consultants who have " been through the test."
It is BHCC who pay POD but this will be a joint choice - Leaseholders/tenants get to see the report also.(Chair: I missed that – I have copy of an invoice made out to Mears from Pod.)
Tony: You need to bear in mind expertise of leaseholders
Keith: If the surveyor specifies a roof needing replacing - need to find out evidence e.g. number of leaks reported.
Larissa: Depends on the quality of the surveyor - leaks may not have been reported
Chair: Do both. POD has gone we have a new framework - it appears - but we the LAG were not involved in this decision/process - news to us.
Glyn: Major works audits not always same contractor - now a range of surveyors and it will be a joint choice for procurement along with residents. POD can bid for work but we are more transparent and will involve a leaseholder/tenant much earlier in conversation on works, e.g. big estate works - roof windows doors - agree with residents if we do these all at same time or staggered e.g. windows one year doors second etc.
We have moved some maintenance into major works.
We needed to respond to central government re. Decent Homes when we were made self funding in 2009/10 and had to invest more in housing stock. This has direct impact on leaseholders.
Keith: Issues for us - new windows everywhere - can we say that these have been maintained properly to comply with guarantees?
DaveS: It may be economic for you but would you do that on your own house?
Larissa: Yes - so I don't keep having upheaval. Do capital repairs to reduce on-going costs.
Decent Homes Strategy: 80% capital expenditure
DaveS: Kitchens bathrooms BHCC spent money on these at the expense of the fabric of the building. When I got the council surveyors’ report on my property it doesn't tell me anything I didn't know it was just caveated pricing list - vague estimates which were then translated into charges - just costing of works. The issue is that the surveyor is not saying what work needs doing.
Chair: Refurbish each unit - that's fine but when it comes to a block - not EVERY window needs doing - just normal maintenance.
Larissa: gave an example of someone who had just bought a unit not being happy because of the comparison with their unit against the others.
Chair: this possibility is not a good reason for doing a blanket replacement every interval (e.g. 20 years)
Rosemary: Some of us need to have the cost staggered e.g. if its roof windows and doors can’t pay all together.
Martin: Yes we need to improve communications
Glyn: Programme change - we will tell leaseholders about this and ask if they agree with the plan and have an asset management strategy; show figures for alternatives but leaves us open to complaints of why the work taking five years instead of all done in one.
Simon: commended the constructive conversation and the idea of consulting with stakeholders
Larissa: stressed the constructive consultation PRIOR to the legal section 20 notice
Simon: Consultants fees need to be provided and the scope of the survey. Currently just a 10% sample of elements of the building; this is a haphazard way. The POD fee is 3-3.5% of the value of the works. Is this enough? Need to be able to examine the files and schedule of works. Clarendon Ellen as e.g. problem of how windows fit into existing brickwork and the suggested solutions e.g. smaller widows. Pre-consultation on this would have helped.
Martin: Consultancy. POD condition survey and CDMC now - separate out those functions so just a condition survey. We are not precious around the percentage fee. Nominated residents can shadow the work as its happening. It is fruitless for us not to supply reports that can be obtained by FOI anyway.
RosemaryJ: Has to be done safely but binoculars can be used and questions of what was found can be asked at the time. If there is a disparity between the state of the windows in whole block who would you listen to?
Larissa: Depends on what's needed e.g. if 18months to do it keep reluctant person's flat to the end of that period OR may need to take majority view. The problem is when stakeholders say that work doesn't need doing at all or complain that it's a lack of maintenance but we would need evidence of complaints prior to this re maintenance. We as Housing Dept are responsible for fabric of the building so need to override if necessary but complainants do have recourse after the event.
Keith: Right to buy caused problems and there are issues of tenants v leaseholders who may be more reserved.
Chair: Corrected the figure of savings from cladding - £145 PA & infinite payback period.
Larissa: responded regarding tenants taking money instead of repair, stating they then cannot complain about disrepair after taking cash.
Keith: Repairs logging by Mears, KPIs manipulated to their advantage - point of repair. There is a link between Capital Programme and reported failures.
Martin: Underinvestment in Local Authority homes led to Decent Homes Programme - complaints re lifts - capital programme for this. Govt took 1% off our budget recently.
Larissa: gave e.g. of if we have to put sprinklers in after Grenfell
Martin: statutory requirements are not enough
Jane: spectre of quality of work - many complaints, but what is done? We need genuine after sales responses not just questions.
Tony: asked what are BHCC doing to minimise these complaints and improve the quality of work..
Martin: said that BHCC were increasing manpower & number of inspectors.
Chair: Need post work meetings to include tenants. We have been refused minutes of council meetings.
Larissa: Don't know why minutes refused. I'm now not on your e mail system - when I was I got to hear about these post-work complaints. Send complaints to US, not each other.
DaveS: Met a new surveyor 8-10 weeks ago
Chair: How would stakeholders be involved as a group? Facebook page?
Larissa: Talk to us - not snagging via facebook.
Simon: Has to be individual leaseholders otherwise disempowered 1:1 communication
Larissa: Stakeholders want someone who knows what they are talking about and we need to meet them at their convenience.
Chair: There needs to be an arrangement with leaseholders as a group not just this group.
Larissa: We will signpost to your group from the LA
Tony: raised an issue about signing off procedure
Martin: - all major works signed off Resident Inspectors group are not a good fit for major works. Clerk of Works Service. Maintenance is 10% Major works 60%; we can be flexible on that. Clear information e.g. measurement of the amount of concrete used. Should be residents who live in that block. There should be a close out meeting.
Tony: Agreed. This has not happened at Warwick Mount.
Larissa: Issue recently when leaseholder agreed with work and their surveyor signed it off then leaseholder said they felt bullied.
Chair: I think there is a misunderstanding on this - the sign off was conditional.
Larissa: People need to say if they are unhappy - forget the past record - can now get own surveyor and we'll talk to them. Email Martin and myself. Councillors want more resources on client side. We will increase the amount we inspect. We do not want shoddy work.